$30,000 plane....

flyingcheesehead said:
Y'know, I hear all these great things about Grummans on here (they go 135 knots! They handle like a fighter!), but about a year ago I went to Hortmann at PNE and got checked out in a very new Tiger. I was unimpressed and underwhelmed. It didn't go anywhere near 135, it performed pretty much just like a good Archer (115-120) and while the handling was a little better, it certainly wasn't stupdendous. :dunno:
Click to expand...
Maybe 115-120 indicated, but that's at 7000-9000 feet where 115-120 KIAS is about 130-135 true airspeed without even breaking a sweat. You don't get that in an Archer. Anyone with an Archer and either formation training or other formation-qualified pilot aboard is welcome to sidle up alongside my Tiger for a demonstration of that.;) Normally I cruise it on about 68% power, getting 130 KTAS on 9.3 gph, but I've been clocked well over 140 KTAS on a closed course on the deck at full throttle, and Stu Morse's stock-engined (but speed-modified with drag reduction features) Tiger was just clocked at 152.87 knots in the Taylor 100 air race. You won't see any Archer even come close to that, with or without speed mods (other than maybe with a 235 HP engine).
 
Last edited:
You can find a log of very old technology, experimental/amateur-built, and/or rare/orphaned airplanes out there for $30K, many with pretty good performance numbers. The only problem is finding parts or mechanics who can work on them, or dealing with the issues of aging tube-and-rag airplanes. You can also find some old retracts for that money, but if you're on a budget and don't have a lot of retract time, you need to do some homework on insurance, which will probably be double that of a fixed gear airplane of comparable size and power even after you get 50 or 100 hours of retractable time, and a lot more before that. Ditto tailwheel planes (unless you accept a big deductible or forego hull insurance).

For those reasons, I think sticking with a fixed-gear, all-metal Beech, Cessna, Piper, or Grumman is a better choice for a first-ownership experience.

BTW, despite its 200HP engine, that A23-24 Beech will barely reach, not less beat, that 110KTAS criterion. The Beech 19/23/24-series airframes are big, roomy, and built like trucks, but they are way slower than their like-engined competition.
 
110 kts might be pushing it a little bit for some of them with the typical C-85 or C-90 engine, but you can get a Cessna 140 with a little more power- lots of them out there with engines of 100hp or more(O-200, O-235). A lot of inexpensive ones out there, too.
Great airplanes, simple and inexpensive to maintain, and not difficult to land at all, if you are intimidated by the tailwheel thing.

The old ones have fabric-covered wings, but some were converted to metal (with varying results) and even a post-150 140A with all-metal wings can be had for a good price under $30K.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
The $30k limit is going to be difficult because it's hard to find planes for that price
Click to expand...

Only if you're not lookin'.

The lower end of the Twin Comanches are down to $50K. Not 30, but a lot more plane than Nick wants too.

There's a very nice 172 with a Horton STOL kit that's hangared here for sale for $29,500.
 
Tom-D said:
"Club Aicraft" = Trainer, beat to crap. high timer.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, Tom. There are a lot of different kinds of "clubs." Some of them are basically FBO's/flight schools in disguise. The club I'm in is an equity club - It's a corporation owned by pilots which owns airplanes. Until very recently, we did not allow anyone pre-Private Pilot certificate at all. A couple of years ago, we changed that to a minimum of 25 hours and post-solo (so the rental birds over at the FBO get beat up by the newbies learning landings).

We have two birds with 5,000 and change hours, and one that just crossed 8,000 - THAT is high time. For a 1971 bird to have 5500 hours on it, however, only averages out to 145 hours/year. I'd be a lot less afraid of a bird that old with 5500 hours than I would of one the same age with 1500 hours!
 
JimNtexas said:
Reason for sale: We want a DA40 or newer Archer.
Click to expand...

I was gonna say, "seems to be a lot of that going around" but then I realized you must be in the same club as another person I'm thinking of. Our club wants to replace an Archer with a DA40 as well.
 
Ron Levy said:
Maybe 115-120 indicated, but that's at 7000-9000 feet where 115-120 KIAS is about 130-135 true airspeed without even breaking a sweat.
Click to expand...

I never saw faster than 115 indicated at 3,000 feet which is only a hair over 120 true. How high do you have to go to true 135? :confused:
 
Kent. Did you read my previous post? That is not typical for a Tiger. Do you think maybe a rental beater may not be properly rigged or display some other issues no matter how new it is or looks?

Do you think its reasonable to base the performance of an entire fleet on one flight in one rental aircraft? Sounds like you have an axe to grind. Well, either listen to people that own them and have hundreds or even thousands of hours in them or go by one short flight in a rental. I know what I'd do if I were selecting an airplane.

Go to the AOPA site and look at the thread entitled "Real world airspeeds" where many pilots gave input on each airplane and see what it says about the Tiger. I'll give you one more example. A close friend of mine had a really really pristine Arrow II. We departed Morehead, NC at the same time. In fact he departed first. We flew at the same altitudes and I arrived before him. He was so mad, he sold the Arrow and bought a V35B Bo with a 300HP IO-550 Colemill Starfire conversion with the four blade Q-tip prop. Can't touch him now, but on a 500 NM trip he still only gets there about a half hour sooner. :D
 
rottydaddy said:
110 kts might be pushing it a little bit for some of them with the typical C-85 or C-90 engine, but you can get a Cessna 140 with a little more power- lots of them out there with engines of 100hp or more(O-200, O-235). A lot of inexpensive ones out there, too.
Great airplanes, simple and inexpensive to maintain, and not difficult to land at all, if you are intimidated by the tailwheel thing.

The old ones have fabric-covered wings, but some were converted to metal (with varying results) and even a post-150 140A with all-metal wings can be had for a good price under $30K.
Click to expand...

Well, a 120/140 is a real easy airplane to fly and maintain. And, it would get him REAL CLOSE to the girlfriend...:rofl:

Ron Levy said:
You can find a log of very old technology, experimental/amateur-built, and/or rare/orphaned airplanes out there for $30K, many with pretty good performance numbers. The only problem is finding parts or mechanics who can work on them, or dealing with the issues of aging tube-and-rag airplanes. You can also find some old retracts for that money, but if you're on a budget and don't have a lot of retract time, you need to do some homework on insurance, which will probably be double that of a fixed gear airplane of comparable size and power even after you get 50 or 100 hours of retractable time, and a lot more before that. Ditto tailwheel planes (unless you accept a big deductible or forego hull insurance).

For those reasons, I think sticking with a fixed-gear, all-metal Beech, Cessna, Piper, or Grumman is a better choice for a first-ownership experience.
Click to expand...

In general, for the average guy, that makes a lot of sense.

But we're talking about Mr. Skyhog here. I just don't see him in a run of the mill Cessna / Piper. I'm thinking it has to be something that stands out. Something with a little beef. That's what got me thinking Stinson Station Wagon. A Navion would fit - but it's a retract - and I don't know what they are going for. A Skybolt would be great for Nick, but there is the girlfriend issue...
 
Luscombe
Taylorcraft
Cessna 140

Under $30k. Maybe 100kts, a bit less, but the difference in 10-15kts over your trip is a handful of minutes.

Parts readily available.

Easy to maintain.

4-5gph fuel burn

Old school.

Do it.

(whatever happened to the plane you were building?)
 
It looks like we're all projecting our own airplane desires on Nick. :rofl:

IIRC, Nick is REALLY not a fan of taildraggers. That should knock out about half the recommendations.

Nick, I think Ron's right on WRT your first plane: Get something dirt simple that's very common. Cherokee, 172, etc. would be the easiest introduction to airplane ownership. And then if/when you decide you don't like it, can't afford it, want to build your own, whatever it'll be easy to unload for a reasonable price (probably at least what you bought it for, if you buy soon).
 
Anthony said:
Kent. Did you read my previous post? That is not typical for a Tiger. Do you think maybe a rental beater may not be properly rigged or display some other issues no matter how new it is or looks?

Do you think its reasonable to base the performance of an entire fleet on one flight in one rental aircraft?
Click to expand...

No - But I'd expect maybe a 5-knot loss due to a "rental beater," especially one that was almost brand new, not 20 knots. :dunno:

Sounds like you have an axe to grind.
Click to expand...

Not with the plane, only with the ****ty instructor - Worst I've ever had.

The plane was a lot better than the instructor was. ;)

Well, either listen to people that own them and have hundreds or even thousands of hours in them or go by one short flight in a rental. I know what I'd do if I were selecting an airplane.
Click to expand...

I'm just providing a counterpoint. I think maybe y'all are suffering from a little bit of "Beech syndrome." ;) It was a nice enough plane, but after the way you guys talk about 'em I expected a lot more. That's all.

A close friend of mine had a really really pristine Arrow II.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean the one that Piper should have sold with the slogan "Arrow II: At least it's faster than a Sierra." :rofl:

We departed Morehead, NC at the same time. In fact he departed first. We flew at the same altitudes and I arrived before him.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt it.

He was so mad, he sold the Arrow and bought a V35B Bo with a 300HP IO-550 Colemill Starfire conversion with the four blade Q-tip prop. Can't touch him now, but on a 500 NM trip he still only gets there about a half hour sooner. :D
Click to expand...

And now he's REALLY suffering from Beech Syndrome! :rofl: Amazing how much that last half hour costs, isn't it? :eek:
 
Nick,

My best friend is interested in selling his Cherokee 180.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28445

I don't really want him to sell it because then I lose my flying buddy, but it is a solid plane. The last several annuals have shown no significant problems. There is a history of damage prior to my friend buying it, but it was repaired properly and the plane trims up well. He is asking 30,000. I think that number is negotiable.

Barb
 
I'm ready to part with my Cherokee 140. 160HP Low Time (~150Hrs), Fresh annual, Art Mattson mods (pipermods.com). A little more than $30K but not much
 
With some of the suggestions I keep seeing, I don't think some of you know how much of the useful load Nick will use himself. I just dont see him packing into a C-140, Taylorcraft, et al.
 
Nick, How handy are you. You could put $4500. into this one and have a 134 KT. airspeed aircraft that will carry a load and get you to your 3oo miles in two hours. A little fixer upper. Bob
1979 CESSNA 182Q • $25,500 • PROJECT FOR SALE • 867 TOTAL TIME SINCE NEW , PILOT RAN THRU FENCE, damage to Fuselage, prop, wings very clean aircraft • Contact Walter Bagdasarian - BAGDASARIAN & ASSOCIATES, Owner - located El Cajon, CA USA • Telephone: 619-322-1495 . • Fax: 619-741-5455 • Posted June 1, 2009 • Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser • Recommend This Ad to a Friend • Email Advertiser • Save to Watchlist • Report This Ad
 
Bob Bement said:
Nick, How handy are you. You could put $4500. into this one and have a 134 KT. airspeed aircraft that will carry a load and get you to your 3oo miles in two hours. A little fixer upper. Bob
1979 CESSNA 182Q • $25,500 • PROJECT FOR SALE • 867 TOTAL TIME SINCE NEW , PILOT RAN THRU FENCE, damage to Fuselage, prop, wings very clean aircraft • Contact Walter Bagdasarian - BAGDASARIAN & ASSOCIATES, Owner - located El Cajon, CA USA • Telephone: 619-322-1495 . • Fax: 619-741-5455 • Posted June 1, 2009 • Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser • Recommend This Ad to a Friend • Email Advertiser • Save to Watchlist • Report This Ad
Click to expand...

And a $100,000 later you'll have a 182!:rolleyes: Just add up an engine teardown and rebuild, a prop overhaul (if possible) nose gear replacement (pricey) chance of a firewall replacement (OMG pricey) plus including all the sheetmetal work.
 
EdFred said:
With some of the suggestions I keep seeing, I don't think some of you know how much of the useful load Nick will use himself. I just dont see him packing into a C-140, Taylorcraft, et al.
Click to expand...

Most of the Spam cans mentioned in this thread will scare the hell out of nicks GF on hot days in the southwest, banging along 2000' AGL in the thermals.

The 210 on the other hand, will be half loaded when he, his GF, plus luggage and full fuel get to the numbers ready to go.

and on those hot days it will climb to altitudes that are pretty cool. and go long.

You can always load light, but you'll get hurt loading heavy.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
It looks like we're all projecting our own airplane desires on Nick. :rofl:
Click to expand...

Like, duuhhhh.... That's the whole point. Obviously what we want is the best choice because if it wasn't we would want something else, eh?

flyingcheesehead said:
IIRC, Nick is REALLY not a fan of taildraggers.
Click to expand...
Well, then, he just needs to get over this problem. Obviously he is being irrational. :smilewinkgrin:
 
EdFred said:
With some of the suggestions I keep seeing, I don't think some of you know how much of the useful load Nick will use himself. I just dont see him packing into a C-140, Taylorcraft, et al.
Click to expand...

Er, uh, he's not an FAA Standard Adult Male?


:D:D:D:D:D
 
I vote for the C175. That extra GO 300 does it for me.
The old C210 is next on the list.
 
Then, how about this one, with low time always hangared, good looking. So so radios, but it won't get you 300 miles in 2 hours. The price is right.

1959 CESSNA 172 STRAIGHT TAIL • $20,000 • PRICE SLASHED • Wanting to sell a real nice Cessna 172 - 4 place aircraft 1959 model with only 3704 hours and just 555 since major overhaul. Good paint and interior. KX 170B and KT 76A , late style gyro's, cleveland brakes, alternator, always hangered. Questions call Me 417-667-1267 • Contact Monte Curtis, Owner - located Nevada, MO USA • Telephone: 417-667-1267 . 417-667-7868 . • Posted May 31, 2009 • Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser • Recommend This Ad to a Friend • Email Advertiser • Save to Watchlist • Report This Ad • View Larger Pictures
 
Tom-D said:
The 210 on the other hand, will be half loaded when he, his GF, plus luggage and full fuel get to the numbers ready to go.
Click to expand...
Uh, maybe not so much so. The T210H we fly has a full-fuel payload of about 607 lbs. It'll take him, his girlfriend, and luggage, but don't count on being only half loaded.
 
gprellwitz said:
Uh, maybe not so much so. The T210H we fly has a full-fuel payload of about 607 lbs. It'll take him, his girlfriend, and luggage, but don't count on being only half loaded.
Click to expand...

The 210H is a heavier bird than a 1960 210. pus it as wider cabin and is slower than the early ones. and carries a lot more fuel,

210 H gross weight 3400
210 " " 2900

210 fuel load 65 gallons
210-H 90 "

210-H usefull load 1440
210 " " 1060

I'll give ya the half load comment, but try to get close to that with any other aircraft selling for 30K
 
+1 for the Beech Musketeer/Sundowner. If you want ROOM, that's the plane.

Slow as hell and sucks 8 or 10gph, but will lift plus-sized people in comfort, and it's built like a brick sh*thouse. Mine just kept running like the energizer bunny. Parts are expensive, but you don't need that many of em.

Everyone is gonna project their preferences onto ya, but I'm 1.8 FAA people, and got my PPASEL in the C23. The guy I bought it from was 6'4 and friggin 360#, and he flew it comfortably.

Fatties go Beechcraft. Both Cessna and Piper needed a sandwich -- but Walter knew what to do with a steak. :D

$0.02
 
Tom-D said:
The 210H is a heavier bird than a 1960 210. pus it as wider cabin and is slower than the early ones. and carries a lot more fuel,

210 H gross weight 3400
210 " " 2900

210 fuel load 65 gallons
210-H 90 "

210-H usefull load 1440
210 " " 1060

I'll give ya the half load comment, but try to get close to that with any other aircraft selling for 30K
Click to expand...
Yeah, it seems almost universal that the later the model, the lower the payload! :rolleyes: (That's why I specified the version of the 210! :))
 
rottydaddy said:
110 kts might be pushing it a little bit for some of them with the typical C-85 or C-90 engine, but you can get a Cessna 140 with a little more power- lots of them out there with engines of 100hp or more(O-200, O-235). A lot of inexpensive ones out there, too.
Great airplanes, simple and inexpensive to maintain, and not difficult to land at all, if you are intimidated by the tailwheel thing.

The old ones have fabric-covered wings, but some were converted to metal (with varying results) and even a post-150 140A with all-metal wings can be had for a good price under $30K.
Click to expand...

A good Luscombe 8E with the C-85/0-200 would get the job done.

Deb
 
N1347B said:
A good Luscombe 8E with the C-85/0-200 would get the job done.

Deb
Click to expand...

You obviously don't know Nick and a cruise of 85kts is quite a bit slower than 110kts like he asked.
 
Last edited:
Sundowner and Cherokees still win the day for me. More of the latter to choose from.
 
If considering the cherokee 140, note that some can be nose heavy to the point that you could be more limited by the forward CG limit than by the (already small) max gross weight. My 140 is limited to 385 lbs in the front seats with full fuel - the limit is the forward CG not max gross weight.
 
Bob -

I don't know if it is true for the 140s but in the 180s there was a W/B graph addendum that allowed the full fuel and two front passengers without being outside the CG. I believe that was issued in 1971 or 1972. The upper lef corner of the graph ended up being double chamfered instead of a single line chamfer.
 
EdFred said:
You obviously don't know Nick and a cruise of 85kts is quite a bit slower than 110kts like he asked.
Click to expand...

Who cruises at 85 knots?

You must have been flying a dog :D.

Deb
 
(assuming you are replying to my post)... I gave the results for my own airplane which is a 1974 cherokee 140.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
It looks like we're all projecting our own airplane desires on Nick. :rofl:

IIRC, Nick is REALLY not a fan of taildraggers. That should knock out about half the recommendations.
Click to expand...
Then how about an older 150? It's really just a 140A with a nosewheel and square tail feathers. :D
 
For someone on a $30K purchase budget who is already worried about overhaul costs and (AFAIK) limited or no retractable gear time, I think a 6-cylinder retractable would be financially unviable when you consider that $30K would be the very bottom end of the market, overhaul costs substantially more, maintenance is higher, and insurance may be triple or more (especially the first year) that of something simple like a Beech Sport, Piper Cherokee, or big-engined Grumman Yankee where $30K is in the center or high end of the market and you'll get a plane with better equipment/condition for the same money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top